2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: ren on February 03, 2014, 07:41:04 AM
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29#url=/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29#url=/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html)
So there is another illegal drug death and there is a nationwide push for the legalization of another drug - marijuana?
After every shooting, there is a call for more gun laws - I don't understand the logic reasoning.
-
It seems to me that just about all of society's woes can be attributed to moral decay. Be it lying politicians that think that if they are not called on it, it was not a lie. Or a shooter that puts their ill feelings above the a safety of others. These suspects are further enabled by talking heads who find any number of excuses for inexcusable behavior.
I'm not a bible thumper, but it seems that a lot of the worlds problems can be attributed to a war on god or at least what religion stands for..... Accountability.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29#url=/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29#url=/articles/2014/02/02/inside-philip-seymour-hoffman-s-apartment.html)
So there is another illegal drug death and there is a nationwide push for the legalization of another drug - marijuana?
After every shooting, there is a call for more gun laws - I don't understand the logic.
That's because it is not logic. Just emotion.
-
the only things the war on drugs is good for are making sure the for-profit gulags are full of nonviolent offenders and bankrolling gangs and terrorist organizations. talk to some ex cops who aren't drinking the cool aid and they will tell you it's a straight up wealth extraction scheme.
-
the only things the war on drugs is good for are making sure the for-profit gulags are full of nonviolent offenders and bankrolling gangs and terrorist organizations. talk to some ex cops who aren't drinking the cool aid and they will tell you it's a straight up wealth extraction scheme.
And you think the Cartels and gangs won't move to the next best thing? It's not like most of these guys doing significant time *only* had drugs...
-
.
-
drugs are guaranteed fast cash for criminals. the same kind of demand for any other illicit activity can't be matched. it would put a huge dent in organized crime bankrolls. plus we would save money on cops and prisons and all that useless homeland security apparatus. addiction is a disease not a crime. but just like the medical system making money off sick people all these bloated government agencies are addicted to drug war money. take away the incentive and they all have to go figure out something productive to do instead of throwing our tax dollars in a hole and setting it on fire.
-
Survivorman, you hit the nail on the head.Moral Decay. The Bible BEING THE HIGHEST MORAL STANDARD.God being the highest moral, ethical being. His ways are higher, His thoughts are higher. AND He can back it up with ACTION.As Jesus said to this one fellow....." You are close to the Kingdom of Heaven". Mary Jane is bad. Real bad. It is a drug. Period. Legalize drugs that will kill'ya, but not guns that will save'ya. And guns are a constitutionally protected right. But Drugs?????? Dont see the connection.
-
Another slippery slope. Liberals love slippery slopes because the slope leads to their agenda, a utopia with no rules. Which would be great if people would regulate themselves other than settling for the lowest common denominator. Without a moral compass any behavior is acceptable. There is a fine line between liberty and lawlessness.
Civil unions=homosexual marriage
Healthcare reform=socialized Medicine
Commercial marijuana=legalized drugs=more junkies=more crime=Etc..
What kind of place will we be leaving for our kids and theirs?
Strange how all of these slippery slopes all slide to the left and downhill.
Scary times we are living in.
-
There's no slipery slope here. Marijuana isn't illegal because it's bad for you, marijuana is illegal because William Randolph Hearst did not want commercial hemp competing with his empire of pulpwood paper. He manufactured the news, the screaming headlines, used his deep pockets to buy votes... you know, the usual.
Marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. It's a completely different beast than the drugs we should be scared of: cocaine, meth, ice, crack, heroine, etc.
-
drugs are guaranteed fast cash for criminals. the same kind of demand for any other illicit activity can't be matched. it would put a huge dent in organized crime bankrolls.
1.) You take one form of money away, you can be sure that they will find others to supplement it. I'm not sure, and I can try to research it, but I imagine the coke, heroine, and meth distribution is more money than weed.
plus we would save money on cops and prisons and all that useless homeland security apparatus.
I just so happen to know many of the individuals locked up for drug crimes. After looking at many of their records, it seems that it was just the low hanging fruit and easy prosecutions. I have yet to see a single guy locked up for drugs where I'm thinking, "damn, he was a good dude." Those guys may exist, but I think they are few and far between. An example, is an idiot I was researching the other night... locked up for felony possession. He had like 10 other suspected felonies that were not pursued. He had felonies that they arrested him on in conjunction with the drug charges - but the drug charge was the easiest to prove. He has been in and out of the court system since eleven years old.
-
Marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. It's a completely different beast than the drugs we should be scared of: cocaine, meth, ice, crack, heroine, etc.
Tom there are pathologists who strongly disagree with that. With the modifications to the plant and growing methods, pot of today is not the pot of your years =p.
-
So there is another illegal drug death and there is a nationwide push for the legalization of another drug - marijuana?
After every shooting, there is a call for more gun laws - I don't understand the logic reasoning.
The truth value of a conclusion is dependent upon the validity of the premises and the inductive or deductive method.
In one case, if you assume as a premise that 1. "guns" are bad (cause harm), and 2. the state ought to regulate bad things, then the state ought to regulate guns more strictly in order that less harm occurs. I'd challenge both premises on several counts. There needs to be a scientific evaluation of the cost/benefit analysis of firearm ownership, which may reveal that the benefits outweigh the costs, or that they are approximately even. If one believes the state ought to regulate things that cause harm, then things that cause more harm than firearm ownership (e.g. motor vehicles, alcohol, tobacco, medical malpractice, etc.) ought to be more severely restricted/regulated than those things that cause less harm (unless you postulate that irrational prejudice or bias is valid).
In the other case, the argument is 1. the state ought to regulate substances/things based upon their cost/benefit analysis of harm caused, 2. cannabis and other currently illegal drugs cause far less harm than many things the state currently deems legal (alcohol, motor vehicles, tobacco, incompetent doctors [lack of sufficient regulation], etc.), therefore the state ought to apply rationally appropriate regulations to cannabis, which means it ought to be regulated less restrictively than alcohol and motor vehicles (since they cause more harm). Someone asserting that cannabis and heroin are virtually identical in consequences of use and therefore ought to be accorded the same state regulation will be in the untenable position of producing any credible evidence to substantiate their claim. Much in the same way, the people who point to various "advocate" research from the CDC, et. al. about the extreme dangers of gun ownership have nothing but highly questionable methodologically unsound pseudo-science as evidence for their claims. Neither of which will stand up to critical scrutiny.
I'd be curious to hear your explanation for what criteria the state ought to use in determining how much of what kind of harm justifies state regulation, and to what degree, and where exactly to draw those lines and how. Please clearly and directly apply whatever criteria you use directly to alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, firearms, and motor vehicles. I've never seen arguments to ban/heavily restrict firearms and cannabis, and leave alcohol and motor vehicles relatively unrestricted that wasn't logically fallacious and/or based upon evidence that was fraudulent or the result of incompetent or biased research.
-
Tom there are pathologists who strongly disagree with that. With the modifications to the plant and growing methods, pot of today is not the pot of your years =p.
Chris, please provide me with the links to the peer reviewed studies evaluating the relative health risks and consequences of tobacco and cannabis where the outcome is that cannabis causes more harm.
Or were you being sarcastic in the same way that there are physicians, sociologists, psychologists, statisticians, and economists that strongly agree that gun ownership is dangerous, and that there is no place for civilian gun ownership?
-
There's no slipery slope here. Marijuana isn't illegal because it's bad for you,
Marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. It's a completely different beast than the drugs we should be scared of: cocaine, meth, ice, crack, heroine, etc.
That IS the slope.....first it's weed, then what?
-
That IS the slope.....first it's weed, then what?
Alcohol? Off-label prescription pharmaceuticals? What kind of slopes are THOSE?
-
I'm beside myself on this, on this, on one hand I believe one should be free to do what he wants, but skeptical that left to their own devices idiots will behave.
I could go for some legislation legalizing all drugs, but when the loser transitions from F'ing up his life to impacting others he gets hammered and removed from society.
-
I'm beside myself on this, on this, on one hand I believe one should be free to do what he wants, but skeptical that left to their own devices idiots will behave.
I could go for some legislation legalizing all drugs, but when the loser transitions from F'ing up his life to impacting others he gets hammered and removed from society.
As is said "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".
The state would have some kind of interest in protecting the rights and safety of citizens by restricting access to seriously and unequivocably harmful substances and attempting to prevent individuals from harming innocent people, animals and property (via laws prohibiting such behavior and punishments for transgressions). This would punish people who consume substances and THEN endanger or harm others by operating a vehicle while impaired, etc. I.e. If it hurts no one else, government butt out.
As for individual choices as to what to consume... THAT is a slippery slope for the state to get involved in. The only real issue that is legitimate is if the state pays for/subsidizes medical care (how is that their job?) and there is overwhelming proof that some substance ends up costing taxpayers huge amounts for health care. Thus tobacco is illegal. Oh, wait, I guess they don't base their policies on a rational basis. If someone wants to be stoned or drunk occasionally or frequently or all the time, and they harm no one else in doing so, what business is it of the state? Of course the state will invoke some "moral" privilege claiming the right to protect citizens from themselves who are too ignorant to take care of themselves properly. Thus alcohol illegality. Oh, wait, it's cannabis illegality that they morally object to. And gambling. And exchange of value for sexual activities. And trans fats. And carbonated sugar-sweetened drinks that are over a certain size. And more than 7/10/15 rounds in a magazine. I don't think there can be a evidence-based rationale for any of it. If you don't hurt anyone else, none of the state's business. Unless you like Big Brother.
-
Marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco.
It is actually worse than tobacco.....most smokers inhale then exhale....with marijuana, then inhale and hold it. Everything that is bad about smoking is made worse when forceably held in the lungs. Maybe there is no added arsenic or some of the other "flavoring ingredients", but tobacco doesn't have natural resins in it either. You DO know what resins are....don't you?....Glue....all natural glue....just like the tar in cigarettes.
-
.
-
Chris, please provide me with the links to the peer reviewed studies evaluating the relative health risks and consequences of tobacco and cannabis where the outcome is that cannabis causes more harm.
Or were you being sarcastic in the same way that there are physicians, sociologists, psychologists, statisticians, and economists that strongly agree that gun ownership is dangerous, and that there is no place for civilian gun ownership?
First, this is not relevant to the statement Tom provided. Second, your question is not relevant either, as what I said has absolutely nothing to do with health risks with tobacco. It's a matter of the effects of cannabis on individuals. Strains of pot today are not just to designed and developed to make you sit back, chill, and want to eat white castle. It's probably one of the more modified plants for growth, potency, and any other effect they want to get out of it. Drug lords have found interesting ways to make pot produce all kinds of results when smoked.
You can feel free to do your own research on risk taking, violence, and addiction. There are ties between these three subjects and they are plainly clear.
I've also seen people first hand who are destroyed by pot grown with additives such as LSD into it's grow beds. The results are not amusing.
-
.
-
Relatively speaking, pot is less "damaging" than alcohol and tobacco. The current trend to increase levels of THC is the natural progression in all agricultural endeavors. The higher THC levels may actually decrease some of the risks associated with smoking it (decreased inhalation volumes and shorter "hold" duration; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091305789903699 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091305789903699)) and there is no conclusive evidence that pot is more harmful than tobacco with regards to pulmonary function. (Physiologic data were inconclusive regarding an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction measures; http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=411692 (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=411692)). That is not to say it isn't harmful to smoke anything, just that it seems no more problematic than tobacco, therefore trying to prevent its use by making it illegal is illogical when compared with the legal drug tobacco. More recent studies show some pulmonary dysfunction with heavy use but not with occasional use. This study also states that medicinal use "...is likely not harmful to lungs in low cumulative doses..." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384575 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384575)) The fact that vaporizing is increasingly becoming the administration route of choice, it would seem that concerns on tar and "resins," and therefore pulmonary sequela would be further minimized. Furthermore, a brand new study, e-published in advance of the print version of Journal of General Internal Medicine, stated "Among adults in primary care who screen positive for any recent illicit or non-medical prescription drug use, we were unable to detect an association between frequency of marijuana use and health, emergency department use, or hospital utilization." (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jan;29(1):133-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2605-z. Epub 2013 Sep 19.)
In addition, THC has been found to be beneficial in many medical therapeutics, including PTSD (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Dec 31. pii: S0376-8716(13)00524-3. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.008. [Epub ahead of print]), seizures (Epilepsy Behav. 2013 Dec;29(3):574-7. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2013.08.037.), and cerebral palsy (Rev Neurol Dis. 2007 Spring;4(2):103-6. Review, J Clin Pharmacol. 1981 Aug-Sep;21(8-9 Suppl):413S-416S.). Ongoing research suggest even more benefits could be realized. That is not to say smoking pot is without dangers, but when compared to other legal intoxicants, say alcohol, there is some evidence that it is less likely to be implicated in automobile accidents (J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014 Jan;75(1):56-64. Drugs and alcohol: their relative crash risk.). There does seem to be a positive correlation with onset of schizophrenia and psychosis, but even those associations are not well understood.
The point is not that pot is harmless, just that it is certainly no more harmful than other intoxicants that we as a society deem legal. That is hypocrisy. The other issue is that as free citizens, adults should be able to choose what to put into their bodies, be it tobacco, alcohol, or pot. The introduction of adulterants that could have adverse affects on someone, especially someone who is unaware of the addition of those substances, is another matter IMHO. It would be like adding LSD to someone's soda and not telling them.
The association between pot and violence and other crimes is most likely related to the circumstances these individuals must live when dealing in black market commodities. You do remember the effects of prohibition, right?
Is there an association between pot (and other drug use) and addiction? Probably, but does that mean that anyone who tries pot, as Reefer Maddness would suggest, is going to go ape-shit crazy? No. The fact that someone can smoke pot (Obama, Clinton) and use cocaine (Bush 2) and still become president (regardless of how you feel about Obama..) should be clear evidence that it isn't the boogie man the DEA and other government entities would like you to believe.
The bottom line, to me any way, is that it is difficult, and borders on hypocrisy and duplicity, to suggest that on one hand the government needs to get out, and stay out of one's personal life, be it their home or their choice to own firearms on one hand, and then suggest that the government somehow should insert themselves into an individuals life when it comes to the substances a citizen may wish to consume.
-
The bottom line, to me any way, is that it is difficult, and borders on hypocrisy and duplicity, to suggest that on one hand the government needs to get out, and stay out of one's personal life, be it their home or their choice to own firearms on one hand, and then suggest that the government somehow should insert themselves into an individuals life when it comes to the substances a citizen may wish to consume.
I would leave out the words "borders on". My bottom line is that if one is not provably harming another person, then what one does is no business of the government. I believe individuals retain the right to harm themselves if that harm does not result in measurable significant societal costs. Yes, I favor the individual's right to end their own life in a manner and time as they see fit. (Yeah, I know the cops were just "following the law" when they shot and almost killed that guy in Kona to stop him from committing suicide, but seriously...). I understand that many people want to invoke some morals clause or superior intelligence or knowledge or (divine) wisdom or do-gooderism or whatever to dictate to others what they "should" do, because, well, they said so. And of course they know they are right. Just ask them. ("Why would anyone need a "clip" with more than 10, or 7, or 3 rounds?")
Does anyone really believe that government (the legislators who make laws and the bureaucrats who enforce them, and the statist citizens who advocate for such laws) has demonstrated their expertise and knowledge in such an overwhelmingly benign and insightful manner that you really want to assign your (formerly) personal choices to said bureaucrats? Their ignorance is known and demonstrated far and wide. They make sh*t up. They have "ulterior" motives. They have been known to be less than fully honest and forthcoming. But they want to tell us what we can and cannot legally put into our bodies (food, psychoactive substances, etc.), what we can and cannot legally do with our money (some "gambling" BAD (whatever they dictate and don't get tax revenue from), some gambling GOOD (state run "lotteries", horse racing, etc.), etc.), and who we legally may do what with (exchange of value between consenting adults for certain activities is a no-no, certain activities in and of themselves are "bad" or "immoral", etc.).
And the justifications are all irrational and logically inconsistent (alcohol: legal, cannabis: illegal, etc.). But they don't care. Just do what they say. Or they'll make you regret it (See: "law enforcement", see also: "selective law enforcement").
-
Does anyone really believe that government (the legislators who make laws and the bureaucrats who enforce them, and the statist citizens who advocate for such laws) has demonstrated their expertise and knowledge in such an overwhelmingly benign and insightful manner that you really want to assign your (formerly) personal choices to said bureaucrats?
A United States government report in 2006 indicated that Americans lost $198.4 million to Internet fraud in 2006, averaging a loss of $5,100 per incident.
This is the population you are referring to??
:wtf: :crazy:
-
A United States government report in 2006 indicated that Americans lost $198.4 million to Internet fraud in 2006, averaging a loss of $5,100 per incident.
This is the population you are referring to??
:wtf: :crazy:
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. I didn't say that the population in general does not have a significant proportion of people that believe in magical thinking (e.g. getting something really good for almost nothing), or that are incompetent at evaluating evidence for or against a claim, or just don't have the plain mental capacity to solve problems. As is said, "there is no law against stupid". Yet. Which of your personal freedoms and liberties are you willing to consign to the government? Besides your health care and Second Amendment rights...